Board+of+Educ.+of+Hopkins+County+v.+Wood

Board of Education of Hopkins County, Kentucky v. Wood Supreme Court of Kentucky Argued 1986; Decided October 16, 1986

Background: Greg Wood and Donnie Wood, respectively, had their teaching contracts terminated after it was alleged that they had entertained two fifteen-year-old girls in their home over the summer months in which the parties smoked marijuana. The Hopkins County Board of Education investigated the incident, held a hearing, and deemed their action to terminate the Woods’ contracts justifiably necessary. The Woods contended that the Board could not terminate tenured teachers’ contracts predicated on actions that occurred while school was not in session and inside their own personal residences. Incidentally, the issue was brought to court and traveled all the way to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Decision and Rationale: The court held that the contracts of tenured teachers may be terminated for conduct “unbecoming a teacher or immoral conduct involving off-campus activities involving students notwithstanding written records indicating a satisfactory teacher performance.” The court reasoned that the “purpose of teacher tenure laws is to promote good order in the school system by preventing the arbitrary removal of capable and experienced teachers by political or personal whim...[but] not to protect those who violate the criminal law.” The court also rationalized that teachers are held to “a standard of personal conduct which does not permit the commission of immoral or criminal acts because of the harmful impression made on the students.”

Impact: Any immoral or questionable actions taken by a teacher outside of the classroom will inevitably, in an assumingly unintended fashion, be an indictment of the teacher’s credulity as an effective teacher inside the classroom. Some egregious action done outside of the classroom, even in the privacy of one’s own home as illustrated here, does not by default mean the teacher is impenetrable from punitive actions taken by the school. Even if a teacher is tenured, there are still instances which can result in the termination of a contract. The crystallized message is just because a teacher is tenured does not mean it is now permissible to participate in activities that were otherwise abandoned prior to becoming tenured because the naivety of thinking his contract is untouchable develops into a mirage of unwavering job security.

Quiz Question:

True or False?

A teacher’s contract cannot be terminated after he becomes tenured.


 * Completed Independently by Stephen Brooks

Submitted by Jose Ramirez Board of Education of Hopkins County v. Wood Supreme Court of Kentucky Decided October 16, 1986

BACKGROUND: In 1983, during the investigation of a murder, information surfaced that two underage girls, both 15, had purchased marijuana cigarettes and had taken the cigarettes to the apartment of the Wood brothers, both teachers in the Hopkins County School system. The grand jury suggested that the county attorney investigate further into this matter, and consequently, the Wood brothers were arrested on a misdemeanor charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Board of Education officials then proceeded to terminate their employment with the school system, for immoral character and conduct unbecoming a teacher. The Wood brothers brought their case to the Court of Appeals on the grounds that the acts were committed during the summer months and off duty hours. The Court of Appeals ordered the reinstatement of the teachers, because no written reports were prepared at any time before or after the termination.

DECISION AND RATIONALE: The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the decision given by the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of circuit court. The reason given for this decision lies with KRS 161.790, which “provides that the teaching contract shall remain in force during good behavior and efficient and competent by the teacher.” The key phrase is “during good behavior”. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure good order and discipline by its teachers. The Supreme Court stated that teachers are to be held to a higher standard, which does not permit immoral or criminal acts, because of the impression it conveys to the students. Although their actions occurred outside the classroom, the Supreme Court felt that the Board may consider such measures when a teacher’s conduct adversely affects students or fellow teachers, as was in the case of Morrison v. State Board of Education.

IMPACT ON TEACHING: The issue in this case is whether a school system has the right to terminate employment of a tenured teacher. Well, once again, here’s a perfect example of how teachers are considered school ambassadors to the community. Teachers need to understand that they do not have the option to shed their title as soon as they walk out the door. If this was the case, then the school system definitely should be able to terminate employment of persons not willing to follow regulations. Certain ethical values are carried out to the community. A teacher’s position does not take a summer break. A teacher’s demeanor is always that of a professional and an example to the children. We cannot allow individuals to pretend to be public servants only during working hours, and yet be involved in unethical behavior outside of the school day.

QUESTION: True or False – Teachers cannot lose their teaching position for unethical behavior, which occurs during the summer months.